CARELESSNESS, INDIFFERENCE AND RECKLESSNESS: TWO REPLIES
| Date | 01 January 1962 |
| Published date | 01 January 1962 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb00678.x |
CARELESSNESS, INDIFFERENCE AND
RECKLESSNESS
:
TWO
REPLIES
I
TEE lawyer, faced constantly with the task of elucidating legal
concepts,
is
grateful for any assistance which the philosopher can
offer.
It
is pre-eminently the latter’s province to map out the
conceptual landscape of ordinary common sense which underlies
the concepts with which the lawyer has to operate. Professor
White’s discussion,l therefore, of carelessness, indifference and reck-
lessness is
to
be welcomed for the light
it
sheds
on
the problems
concerning the legal concepts of negligence and recklessness.
So
far
as
ordinary language is concerned, he points out that
while recklessness falls into the same category as indifference,
carelessness does not. Recklessness
is
a form
of
indifference; care-
lessness is not. Recklessness and indifference are both attitudes
or states
of
mind; carelessness
is
not. This analysis is valuable in
countering both the mistaken idea that recklessness
is
simply a type
of carelessness and the fallacy that since carelessness
is
a state
of
mind,
viz.,
inadvertence, there cannot be degrees of
It
is contended here, however, that his definitions of carelessness
and recklessness are inadequate and to some extent inaccurate as
definitions of these terms in ordinary extra-legal use.
CAEELE88NES8
“
Carelessness
”
he defines
as
“
failure to give attention to, and
take precautions against, the risks inherent in the successful prose-
cution
of
some activity.’ya This definition is in some respects too
narrow, in others too wide and in others yet again inadequate.
This definition is too narrow in that it takes
no
account of the
fact
that words denoting carelessness are commonly used to make
two different types of assertion. (a) They can be used to criticise
the way in which an action is performed. (b) They can be used
to criticise not the performance but the performer himself.
(a)
An
example of the first type of assertion would be the
statement “he played the piece of music carelessly.” In such a
case we might speak
of
his careless performance and attribute the
wrong notes to carelessness. There is
no
question here, however,
of
failure to attend
to
and take precautions against risks. The
possibility
of
striking
a
wrong note
or
not keeping the time is too
1
(1961)
24
M.L.R.
6W.
2
Thin
fallacy
I!,
neetl
3
Ibirp.
693.
disposed
of
in
”
Negli
ence,
Men8 Rea
and
Criminal
Res
nsibility by
d.
L.
A.
Hart
in
Ozford
%!mayr
in
Jurisprudence.
49
To continue reading
Request your trial